What has globalization ever done to you? - Page 3

Spiffor · May 7, 2003, 13:55

Arrian :
Erm, what is the connection between my whining on ACI and gsmosse's economic points ? I don't exactly get it.

Oerdin · May 7, 2003, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
: I'm not advocating a withdrawl of US companies. I'm advocating a level playing field. South Korea's success is attributed to the people, not some MNC's.

Sava: Yes, the people are what decide if a country is a success or not but how can they be successful without capital or without a good government to enforce fair laws and order?

Sava · May 7, 2003, 13:57

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan

This is not a matter of choice. As an American you would NOT want the world to be populated by poor, hostile, frustrated, desperate countries. You need to set up a moderate elite in every country so that these countries would stay down and quiet. And those countries get a headstart on their own development. Is there a problem?

I agree 100%. It isn't a matter of choice. And I'm not talking about reducing foreign investment. I'm talking about improving things in America. If anything, increased prosperity in America will increase our ability to invest in foreign countries.

Sure Koreans have the same cultural values. But the Authoritarian Stalinist government in NK does not hold the same economic and societal values as SK. That is the difference.

My goal is to virtually eliminate poverty. I feel that this is a feasible goal. Pessimists may disagree, but they suck. How can America be expected to eliminate global poverty if it cannot eliminate it's own first? I want to change the American system in order to eliminate poverty. Then, we can work with the rest of the world in order to follow suit.

Arrian · May 7, 2003, 13:59

Spiff,

None, really. And that's what I was saying (see the last sentance in the post). But "anti-globalization" seems to include both issues. Hence your comments regarding ACI and then gsmoove's comments on the socioeconomic impact of globalization.

Why are they in the same thread? The world "globalization" that's why. It seems to have become some sort of umbrella term that includes both your complaints, and the economic issues inherent when companies from a rich country do business with and (more importantly) IN a poor one.

-Arrian

Sava · May 7, 2003, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Sava: Yes, the people are what decide if a country is a success or not but how can they be successful without capital or without a good government to enforce fair laws and order?

We're starting to get into the murky world of what capital is. But when you get down to it. Everything is based upon human labor. My goal is to create a system or improve the current system so that it is more efficient. I'm a firm believer in the potential of humanity. It is possible for us to have our cake and eat it, too. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to do it.

gsmoove23 · May 7, 2003, 14:00

ranskaldan, boohoo, the investment of the MNC into a country will increase the job pool, adults only will work for the MNC and children will be able to take more jobs with home grown businesses. Of course, in regards to the MNC factories, adults will not have their jobs taken by children who can be paid less.

ranskaldan · May 7, 2003, 14:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

I agree 100%. It isn't a matter of choice. And I'm not talking about reducing foreign investment. I'm talking about improving things in America. If anything, increased prosperity in America will increase our ability to invest in foreign countries.

Sure Koreans have the same cultural values. But the Authoritarian Stalinist government in NK does not hold the same economic and societal values as SK. That is the difference.

My goal is to virtually eliminate poverty. I feel that this is a feasible goal. Pessimists may disagree, but they suck. How can America be expected to eliminate global poverty if it cannot eliminate it's own first? I want to change the American system in order to eliminate poverty. Then, we can work with the rest of the world in order to follow suit.

What kind of changes?

Spiffor · May 7, 2003, 14:02

Arrian :
Well, actually, the word "globalization" wouldn't have rung my cultural beel if I hadn't read the article Siro posted.

But I think Che's post is clear and precise about the feelings of the "antis" towards globalization. At least, among the "antis" that I know, i.e who belong to a young educated middle class.

ranskaldan · May 7, 2003, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
ranskaldan, boohoo, the investment of the MNC into a country will increase the job pool, adults only will work for the MNC and children will be able to take more jobs with home grown businesses. Of course, in regards to the MNC factories, adults will not have their jobs taken by children who can be paid less.

Huh?

You need to rephrase a bit before I can figure out what you're saying.

chequita guevara · May 7, 2003, 14:04

A lot of folks seem to forget that the law is easy to get around in much of the world for the right amount of money. Many run-away companies do not pay even the local minimum wage. Frequently one reads about migrant workers being chained to their workplaces, their passports stolen, and the plant shutting down without paying the emplyees (not necessarily all at the same factory). This stuff goes on in the US, where it isn't merely illegal but unconstitutional (13th Amendment, no slavery). It's worse abroad.

Protestors aren't upset that thee people have jobs. They are upset at the conditions underwhich these people must work. Frthermore, by breaking local laws and practicing slavery, it makes it that much harder for 1st world workers to compete fairly for their jobs. No one likes losing his job, but losng your job to a slave so your former boss can suck down even more profit makes a lot of people see red.

chequita guevara · May 7, 2003, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Che: The Anti-globalizers say they are internationalists but their fear mongering is the greatest restraint upon further international exchanges.

What fear mongering?

I'm sorry, but I don't hear any "anti-globalization" people saying or writing the views proported to belong to us. The only place you can read it are in the words put in our mouths by the authors of articles like the one Siro posted.

gsmoove23 · May 7, 2003, 14:08

Ranskaldan, its in reference to this...

Quote:

What if the child has no choice other than to work in the textiles factory (let's say)?

Simply saying that MNC investment will increase the job pool for children, in countries where it is legal for them to work, whether they can work for the MNC or not.

gsmoove23 · May 7, 2003, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Why are they in the same thread? The world "globalization" that's why. It seems to have become some sort of umbrella term that includes both your complaints, and the economic issues inherent when companies from a rich country do business with and (more importantly) IN a poor one.

-Arrian

There is a perfectly natural alliance of sorts between the anti-globalization crowd and Union workers or uskilled workers in countries that are losing jobs to factories abroad. Its a double whammy exploiting workers abroad for dirt pay maximizing the profit in moving jobs away from more developed countries where workers have fought hard for the right to be paid decent wages.

ranskaldan · May 7, 2003, 14:15

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Ranskaldan, its in reference to this...

Simply saying that MNC investment will increase the job pool for children, in countries where it is legal for them to work, whether they can work for the MNC or not.

In many of those countries there are domestic jobs for children anyway - usually along the lines of foraging at city dumps, working in the salt mines, joining the military (some countries) - or selling themselves.

MNC jobs pay more, are much better than some of those examples above, and free up at least some of the children for school.

Oerdin · May 7, 2003, 14:25

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Protestors aren't upset that thee people have jobs. They are upset at the conditions underwhich these people must work. Frthermore, by breaking local laws and practicing slavery, it makes it that much harder for 1st world workers to compete fairly for their jobs. No one likes losing his job, but losng your job to a slave so your former boss can suck down even more profit makes a lot of people see red.

I agree that this sort of thing should not happen. First the local authorities and the local workers should decid what sort of conditions are reasonable (I think everyone will agree slavery is not reasonable) but if that doesn't work then it is up to consumers to boycott firms which they feel, for what ever reason, aren't meeting their needs.

Just don't get mad when everybody else doesn't agree with you and decides not to boycott.

gsmoove23 · May 7, 2003, 14:27

ranskaldan, please. If the MNC offers jobs to children it can pay them much less and also perpetuate the practice of child labor. Why not pay adults a wage that is above average for the country and perhaps their children won't have to work. Nevertheless, if you offer adult only jobs that will increase the job pool for adults, meaning many of them will be able to make enough so their children won't have to work.

Arrian · May 7, 2003, 14:31

Quote:

There is a perfectly natural alliance of sorts between the anti-globalization crowd and Union workers or uskilled workers in countries that are losing jobs to factories abroad. Its a double whammy exploiting workers abroad for dirt pay maximizing the profit in moving jobs away from more developed countries where workers have fought hard for the right to be paid decent wages.

Yes, there is. They are the two sides of the "socioeconomic impact" coin. But I wasn't referring to that.

Quote:

Arrian :
Erm, what is the connection between my whining on ACI and gsmosse's economic points ? I don't exactly get it.

*snip*

Spiff,

None, really. And that's what I was saying (see the last sentance in the post). But "anti-globalization" seems to include both issues. Hence your comments regarding ACI and then gsmoove's comments on the socioeconomic impact of globalization.

That's what I was talking about.

-Arrian

editor's note: "ACI" refers to "American Cultural Imperialism"

Oerdin · May 7, 2003, 16:20

Now, if those same unionized workers hadn't run up their wages compared to the rest of the competetion would they be losing their jobs? Unions are good but militant unions almost always end up costing their members the very jobs they are try to protect.

ranskaldan · May 7, 2003, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
ranskaldan, please. If the MNC offers jobs to children it can pay them much less and also perpetuate the practice of child labor. Why not pay adults a wage that is above average for the country and perhaps their children won't have to work. Nevertheless, if you offer adult only jobs that will increase the job pool for adults, meaning many of them will be able to make enough so their children won't have to work.

And who exactly is going to convince MNC's to do that?

Put legislation like that into place and MNC's would simply move. Then those countries - adults AND children - can simply go to hell.

Of course, we wish that MNC's could simply be nice and stay to pay more. We also wish that people could be nice to each other so that communism could finally work.

gsmoove23 · May 7, 2003, 16:55

Thats why I'm thinking the legislation should come from the home country of the MNC or an international authority. Its ridiculous to think that 3rd world governments could control MNCs when some have the resources to buy the country 5 times over.

ranskaldan · May 7, 2003, 17:07

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Thats why I'm thinking the legislation should come from the home country of the MNC or an international authority. Its ridiculous to think that 3rd world governments could control MNCs when some have the resources to buy the country 5 times over.

I don't know about this actually. Can the legislation of one country have any power over what its corporations do abroad?

DinoDoc · May 7, 2003, 17:14

No.

Spiffor · May 7, 2003, 17:17

It can have power if it plans to punish these corporations at home for their behaviour abroad (like forbidding companies to deal with the US if they have dealt with Iran). But that requires a huge political will.

Sava · May 7, 2003, 17:20

Quote:

What kind of changes?

For starters... free education and health care. Eventually, the abolition of the minimum wage.

Sirotnikov · May 7, 2003, 17:59

Erm, could some of the more spammy posts be deleted please?

ranskaldan · May 7, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
It can have power if it plans to punish these corporations at home for their behaviour abroad (like forbidding companies to deal with the US if they have dealt with Iran). But that requires a huge political will.

Politicians probably can't piss off their own sponsors like that.

Sava: It looks workable - except that you'll offend everyone on the entire political spectrum one way or the other.

Bosh · May 7, 2003, 18:40

Globalization, led by the world bank and the IMF, will lead America and the world to a brigher tommorow!

Sava · May 7, 2003, 18:42

Quote:

Sava: It looks workable - except that you'll offend everyone on the entire political spectrum one way or the other.

I wouldn't have it any other way!

Admiral PJ · May 7, 2003, 19:42

City of the gods is distributed by a US company which will make a lot of the profits , so its more american global imperialism.

Political globalisation and world unity is needed, which could be helped by positive global culture.

A lot of so called cultural globalisation is just done to make money and lacks any meaningful cultural content, if its done with a moral and non nationilist way its much more relevant.

Oerdin · May 7, 2003, 20:00

Of course the guy owning the taco shop or Kibab shop/ or Indian food place wants to make money. That is irrelivent. The important point is that consumers now have an increase in the number of choices which are availible to them.

That simply can't be a bad thing.